Kyle is for drivers, not walkers

Kyle is distinctly automobile friendly, but not pedestrian friendly. It is not a city that will make those who like to walk feel all that comfortable or at home.

The evidence of this is everywhere. Kyle’s main shopping area — that section of FM 1626 that straddles I-35 — is not within comfortable walking distance of any single family residential neighborhood. The distance between the front door of my residence and the front entrance of the H-E-B is a scant one-quarter mile — an easily negotiable and desirable walking distance; however, because my residence is located on one of those dreaded cul-de-sacs that, among other awful attributes, severely limits connectivity, the only possible way to get from the front door of my residence to the front entrance of the H-E-B is to follow a route that’s a mile and a half in distance — not that negotiable for walking, especially for someone who has occupied this planet for three quarters of a century and even more especially not in the heat of a Kyle summer.

Look at all the plans for new subdivisions that come before the Planning & Zoning Commission each month. None of them contain any form of recreation areas, even designated small areas for pocket parks or even smaller tot playgrounds. If a parent living in a typical Kyle subdivision wants to take their kids for a short playtime at a playground, he or she can’t simply walk them there; they must strap them into a car seat and take the trouble and drive them the nearest recreational spot.

Want to know why our local roads are deteriorating so rapidly? It’s because that whenever a Kyle resident leaves his/her home, he/she must get in the car to get to where they want to go. It is impossible to walk there. Hike? Possibly. Walk or stroll? Absolutely not.

And if there’s a conflict between pedestrians and motorists, it seems Kyle comes down on the side of the motorist.

All these thoughts came to mind today when I reviewed the proposed parking ordinance the City Council will review and consider adopting at its regularly scheduled meeting which begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall. It’s labeled a second reading of a previously passed ordinance, but the truth is it is a complete rewrite and, in this writer’s opinion, a vast improvement over the one considered a little more than two months ago. Interestingly, however, in that May 16 meeting, Mayor Todd Webster said the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to establish a fee structure for parking fines in order to quell the complaints from local residents about $200 parking tickets. The ordinance the council will consider Tuesday, however, contains only one brief paragraph about fines: "Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter, or shall fail to comply therewith, or with any of the requirements thereof, within the city limits shall be deemed guilty of an offense and shall be liable for a fine not to exceed the sum of $200 but not less than $30, except for disabled parking violations which shall be a minimum of $250. Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense."

But that’s OK, because the normal parking citation usually lists the specific fines for individual violations.

The new ordinance also makes it easier for police to impound a vehicle violating certain parking provisions: "Any vehicle which shall be or remain standing or parked upon any public street, avenue, way, alley or other public place that is deemed a hazard may be removed by or upon an order of a police officer. The owner of such vehicle shall be responsible for the payment of any fees incurred for the towing and/or storage of said vehicle." A previous section states a vehicle may also be impounded "if the offender has committed three or more parking or stopping offenses in the past calendar year." The previous ordinance virtually required a court order for a vehicle to be impounded.

And this ordinance removes what was an oddly inserted anti-panhandling ordinance contained in the original and places something similar in its proper context, under a heading called "Parking or loitering near hazardous or congested places." By doing this, it places the emphasis not on the panhandling, per se, but on those motorists who restrict traffic flow by stopping in the roadways to pander the panhandlers. Specifically, the ordinance rewrite says: "It is unlawful for a person to loiter in medians or near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of congested roads (my emphasis) for the solicitation of money. The selling or promotion of goods and services is lawful, if: (1) carried on by emergency services departments within city limits; or, (2) involves the selling of newspapers with a reflective vest; or, (3) is conducted by a non-profit with a permit and reflective vest." (I realize the ordnance contains a dangling participle — I, too, have never seen a newspaper with a reflective vest. As for the non-profit — who's to say?)

The ordinance does, in my opinion, have one glaring omission and perhaps I noticed the omission more than others because I am someone who prefers walking over motoring whenever possible, In fact, I try to take, at a minimum, three extended walks per day. And I have found that (1) Kyle contains certain crossings, both on city streets and in public parking lots, that are designated as pedestrian crossings; (2) motorists believe there’s nothing wrong with parking in such a manner that it obstructs these crossings; and (3) there is nothing in this ordinance that prohibits such obstructions.

But, then, like I said at the beginning "Kyle is distinctly automobile friendly, but not pedestrian friendly."

In other matters on Tuesday’s council agenda:

• The Pedernales Electric Cooperative’s 10-year franchise agreement to be the city’s provider of electrical services expired a little more than two months ago (on May 6), so the city is finally getting around to granting the company another 10-year agreement to provide the same service at the cost of 2 percent "of the gross revenues received by the cooperative from the cooperative's sale of energy and power sold to customers within the city limits of the city." Interestingly, I could not find the word "exclusive" anywhere in the agreement so I assume that means a competitor could conceivably come to the area. Consumers in Austin, to cite just one example, can choose from among any of these electrical plans.
• The next item on the Consent Agenda immediately following the one granting Pedernales another 10-year electrical franchise, is one seeking an addition $41,964 for engineering services needed for the Burleson Road project in part because the electric provider (the above-referenced Pedernales) "was not able to move all original poles in conflict due to lack of ability to obtain new easements." However, the cost attached to address the additional consultations with PEC to review the pole relocations is only $2,866 or 6.8 percent of the total additional amount requested. Following this expenditure, $9.575 million remains of the original $11.5 million (83.2 percent) in bond revenue dedicated for the Burleson Road project.
• The council will consider, which should be a no-brainer, approving a conditional use permit for a much-welcomed IDEA public charter school located at the intersection of what is now (but may not be by the end of Tuesday’s council meeting) Goforth Road and Bluestem Street. The only question to be decided is how much of the school will be approved for the permit. The agenda item seeks approval for 74,819 square feet, but IDEA’s amended application seeks approval for 96,700 square feet to cover a future pavilion. A memo attached to this agenda item states the city’s "staff supports the establishment of a public charter school, both in general, and at the specific location being proposed. Construction of public schools close to neighborhoods has primary benefits of providing opportunities for students to walk or bike to school, can add after-school programs in which students can be involved, and displaces less desirable land uses. The secondary benefits of more and better educational opportunities are also attractive to a community; families locate in places with great schools. Once families establish themselves in great numbers, employment and retail outlets follow closely on their heels." A public hearing accompanies this agenda item.
• There’s also a public hearing attached to the item I referenced in the preceding paragraph, a resolution to rename Goforth Road. According to the proposal, the north-south section of Goforth from I-35 to Bunton Creek will be renamed Philomena Drive. The east-west portion of Goforth from Bunton Creek east to the next north-south portion of Goforth will be renamed Bunton Creek (so that Lehman High School, for example, will be on the corner of Lehman and Bunton Creek, not Lehman and Goforth). The designation of that second referenced north-south section of Goforth east of Southlake Ranch will remain unchanged. When all this goes into effect is a little unclear. The time line accompanying the resolution states the "Resolution will have an ‘effective date certain’ clause to allow sufficient time for all applicable parties to update business and residential changes as related." However, the actual resolution states only "new addresses associated with the name change are effective on the date described herein," yet nothing else involving dates is "described herein." Hopefully, clarifications will be provided during Tuesday’s hearing.
• Capstone Dental, located immediately west of FM 150 and Rebel Drive is making a reasonable request for additional parking places on its property. Under current ordinances, a building the size of Capstone Dental (3,029 square feet) located in an area zoned for retail services is allowed, at the most, 19 parking spaces. Capstone currently has 17 and 15 of those are needed for staff parking, leaving only two spaces for customers. The facility has six chairs and is seeking eight additional parking it feels will be enough to satisfy both the customers being treated in those chairs and those awaiting treatment. City staff has recommended approving the request for additional parking places.
• Conversely, a self-storage facility that will be inappropriately located along the southbound frontage road of I-35 south of Kohlers Crossing wants to reduce drastically the number parking spaces it’s required to provide (one space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for every 1½ employees). Storage facilities don’t require than many employees; however, the planned total square footage of the operation is 107,515, thus necessitating 108 parking spaces just to satisfy the square-footage parking requirement. The company is seeking to reduce that 108 number to just seven. This request also seems reasonable.